Arif Iqbal argued on behalf of appellant
Prayagraj: In Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad – Regular Appeal No. 27/2020 – Mukesh Kumar, S/o Late Chandra Kishore Prasad Singh R/o Village & Post Ghosaut, P.S. Siwaipati, District Muzaffarpur Versus Authorized Officer-cum-Chief Manager, (ROSARB), Bank of Baroda & Bank of Baroda, Branch – Umanagar, Near Shri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur, P.S.-Ahiyapur, District-Muzaffarpur through its Manager. 3. Manish Mohan S/o Satyendra Narayan Singh R/o Nazirpur, Shiekhpur, Muzaffarpur-842002, Bihar (Auction Purchaser). Advocates, who appeared in this case: For the appellant – Arif Iqbal, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 & 2- Shri S.D. Sahai, Advocate Bank. For the respondent Nos. 3 Shri K. Kartikeya, Advocate Auction Purchaser
JUSTICE R. D. KHARE, CHAIRPERSON heard the arguments in which appeal has been filed under section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”) against the impugned Judgment and order dated 29.04.2019, whereby the S.A. No.24/2019 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant was granted financial assistance by the respondent-Bank. In order to secure the same, an equitable mortgage of residential plot was created by one Smt. Urmila Devi, W/O Kishore Prasad Singh by depositing original title deed with the respondent-Bank. Since the appellant did not adhere to the terms of loan agreement, therefore, the account was classified as NPA on 03.10.2017 and a demand notice dated 17.10.2017 under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs. 7,93,632/-. Since the borrowers did not pay any heed to the said demand, therefore, possession notice dated 02.02.2018 was issued under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the same was affixed and published in two newspapers on 03.02.2018. Thereafter, the sale notice dated 05.11.2018 was issued and published in the newspapers scheduling the auction of property on 29.11.2018. Prior to the said sale the respondent-Band had earlier issued the auction sale notice dated 09.02.2018 by which the property was to be sold on 13.03.2018, but the appellant has deposited Rs. 3.00 lacs to save his property, therefore, the said sale could not materialize.
The appellant challenged the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank before the Tribunal below by filing the present S.A. The Tribunal below has dismissed the said S.A. vide order impugned holding that the respondent- bank has followed the mandatory procedures while selling the property in question. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant Arif Iqbal submitted that the mortgager Late Chandra Kishore Prasad Singh had expired on 08.08.2009 and the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was Issued on 17.10.2017, therefore, the entire proceedings have been conducted against a dead person. It was further contended that the respondent bank has not complied with Rule 3, 8(1), 8(2), 8(5), 8(6), 8(7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 by not properly serving the demand notice, possession notice and the sale notice, but without considering these facts the Tribunal below has dismissed the S.A. vide order impugned. It was therefore, prayed that the order impugned may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
In view of the discussions as recorded above, the order impugned is set aside to the extent of auction sale dated 29.11.2018 and its subsequent actions and rest part of the same shall remain Intact. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
